Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors?
A friend called me to get my reaction to the Bloomberg/Urban endorsement on Brookfieldnow, for the Democrat candidate for the 5th State Senate District seat. Since I had not seen it, my first reaction was of disbelief. I thought, how could any real conservative throw their support to a very liberal senate candidate over a truly conservative candidate like Republican State Senator Tom Reynolds?
Of course, I had answered my own question: Bloomberg, and Urban for that matter, are not real conservatives. Their endorsement seems pretty RINOesk. Out here in Republican Party stronghold territory, otherwise known as Waukesha County, if you want to hold office, you really have to be a Republican—even if that means you are a Republican in name only. If memory serves me correctly, our current mayor first joined the Republicans when he moved to Brookfield. (His spending is very RINOesk, too.)
It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. I learned from talking to and working with many of you, that with very local issues like saving Swanson School, trying to slow down the rampant development, or scaling back over-kill road projects, these back yard issues know no political party affiliations. These very local issues truly unite us whether we “are conservative, liberal or somewhere in between”. I am as socially and fiscally conservative at every level of government--local, state, and federal--as some of you are liberal. Yet, we are able to unite and work toward a common good.
But the Brookfieldnow posting cited that in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position. How is it I would be satisfied with his representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, (how could I forget pro voter photo ID, anti benefits to illegal aliens), fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation? Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?
I believe Senator Tom Reynolds has done a good job representing the people of his district. He worked to cut government waste and get the automatic gas tax increase stopped (*no wonder the road builders want him out of there!) He has voted consistently with his party. Our problem in Madison (and Washington) is not that representatives like Reynolds and Grothman are too conservative; our problem is that too may Republicans are RINOs! Tom Reynolds is someone who is not influenced by lobbyists, or public opinion for that matter. In “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” style, he votes his conscience. I like that.
* Last spring, I received a newsletter from Senator Reynolds warning of the influence lobbyist’s contributions were having on state spending. He wrote, "According to a Jan. 15th Associated Press news article, 'Contributions from road interests to state candidates tripled, from about $150,000 in 1994 to nearly $475,000 in 2002. During that period, legislators boosted state funding to the annual road construction budget by 44%.' There are far too many bills passed in Madison that favor the top campaign contributors."